I’m completely sick of this wholly invented “red line” crap. It’s not a thing, and to act like it is is to normalize authoritarian disregard of the rule of law
As a number of folks have pointed out, the "red line" was fed to Trump by Michael S. Schmidt. Leaving aside the obvious fact that targets of criminal investigations don't get to dictate the terms (as @LMutty1 put it), Schmidt never explained what he meant nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/… 
But here's something odd: Earlier in the same interview, *Trump* used the phrase "red line," referring to Obama's 2012 statement on chemical weapons in Syria. Very curious to use the same terminology w/r/t both Mueller and Assad.
Please explain what this "red line" means
Looks like firing Mueller would in fact be the "red line" for the American people poll.qu.edu/national/relea…
Oh, so now Trump is setting another "line" (apparently without color) for Rosenstein? Again, it doesn't work this way: Targets of criminal investigations do not get to tell prosecutors what they can and can't investigate. cnn.com/2018/04/10/pol…
Six reporters are bylined on CNN's piece about Trump possibly firing Rosenstein, and yet there's not a single mention of the enormous ethical breach such a move would represent. Only the political considerations are discussed.
Context-free stories like this damage our republic. It is a massive disservice not to mention how the highlighted portion is *absolutely insane* and *not at all what presidents are permitted to do* in nations governed by the rule of law.
Sweet heavens. The Times is *still* at it with this "red line" nonsense. Trump doesn't get to declare "red lines." No one does. nytimes.com/2018/04/10/us/…
